alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sky-mobi Limited (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Tao Song, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 17, 2011



|    |  |                      |  |                                     
|--- |  | -------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Michael Tao Song
|    |  | Name:                |  | Michael Tao Song                    
|    |  | Title:               |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.2



Certification by the Chief Financial
Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Sky-mobi Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fischer Xiaodong Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 29, 2016



|By: |  | /s/ Fischer Xiaodong Chen |                        
|--- |  | ------------------------- | -----------------------
|    |  | Name:                     | Fischer Xiaodong Chen  
|    |  | Title:                    | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  |                           |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                     150,873,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               51,951,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,334,000
<INVENTORY>                                 67,520,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           278,980,000
<PP&E>                                     146,602,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              97,100,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             402,076,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      161,808,000
<BONDS>                                    129,931,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    764,000
<COMMON>                                    14,852,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  74,123,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               402,076,000
<SALES>                                    219,256,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           391,869,000
<CGS>                                      177,808,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              221,844,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           132,574,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               262,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          22,708,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             29,330,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,575,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         27,755,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                27,755,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
<FN>
<F1>Total revenues include amounts from airbag royalties litigation
settlement and other expenses include an $85.0 million reserve for realty 
assets.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2.2
 Amendment No. 74 (CA)
 SOW:
    
    o  Yesþ  No
 
 AMENDMENT NO. 74
 UNDER
 CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR NUMBERING
ADMINISTRATION CENTER / SERVICE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
 KEY PERSONNEL UPDATE
 TO
 ATTACHMENT D OF CANADIAN NPAC/SMS USER AGREEMENT
 CONFIDENTIAL
 Page 1




---



##### 



Amendment No. 74 (CA)
 SOW:
    
    o Yesþ No
 AMENDMENT NO. 74
 UNDER
 CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR NUMBERING
ADMINISTRATION CENTER / SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
 Key Personnel Update to Attachment D of Canadian NPAC/SMS User Agreement
 1. PARTIES
 Amendment) Master Agreement) (Contractor) Customer).
 2. EFFECTIVENESS
 Amendment Effective
Date)
 3. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
  N/A
    
    Functional Requirements SpecificationsN/A
    
    Requirements Traceability MatrixN/A
    
    External DesignN/A
    
    System DesignN/A
    
    Detailed DesignN/A
    
    Integration Test PlanN/A
    
    System Test PlanN/A
    
    Software Quality Assurance Program ReportN/A
    
    User DocumentationN/A
    
    Software Configuration Management PlanN/A
    
    Standards and Metrics
 4. IMPACTS ON MASTER AGREEMENT
  CONFIDENTIAL
 Page 2




---



##### 



Amendment No. 74 (CA)
 SOW:
    
    o Yesþ No
 None
    
    Master AgreementNone
    
    Exhibit B Functional Requirements SpecificationNone
    
    Exhibit C Interoperable Interface SpecificationNone
    
    Exhibit E Pricing SchedulesNone
    
    Exhibit F Project Plan and Test ScheduleNone
    
    Exhibit G Service Level RequirementsNone
    
    Exhibit H Reporting and Monitoring Requirementsü
    
    Exhibit I Key Personnelü
    
    Exhibit J User Agreement FormNone
    
    Exhibit K External DesignNone
    
    Exhibit L Infrastructure/HardwareNone
    
    Exhibit M Software Escrow AgreementNone
    
    Exhibit O Statement of Work Cost Principles
 5. KEY PERSONNEL UPDATE
  6. MISCELLANEOUS
 Counterparts
  Continuation of Master Agreement and User Agreement
  CONFIDENTIAL
 Page 3




---



##### 



Amendment No. 74 (CA)
 SOW:
    
    o Yesþ No
 Entire Agreement
  [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
 CONFIDENTIAL
 Page 4




---



##### 



Amendment No. 74 (CA)
 SOW:
    
    o Yesþ No
  CONTRACTOR: NeuStar, Inc.
 Signature:
    
    /s/ Bradley D. SmithName:
    
    Bradley D. SmithTitle:
    

VP, Finance & Corp ControllerDate:
    

May 21, 2009
 CUSTOMER: Canadian LNP Consortium Inc.
 Signature:
    
    /s/ JR SarrazinName:
    
    JR SarrazinTitle:
    

PresidentDate:
    

May 19, 2009
 CONFIDENTIAL
 Page 5




---



##### 



Amendment No. 74 (CA)
 SOW:
    
    o Yesþ No
 ATTACHMENT 1
 TO
AMENDMENT NO. 74
 Key Personnel Update to Attachment D of Canadian NPAC/SMS User Agreement
 CONFIDENTIAL
 Page 6




---



##### 



Amendment No. 74 (CA)
 SOW:
    
    o Yesþ No
 ATTACHMENT D
 Key Personnel under Canadian NPAC/SMS User Agreement
 1.
    
    INTRODUCTION
  2.
    
    CONTRACTOR
     3.
    
    USER
  
 
 
 4.
    
    CUSTOMER
 The following is the current Project Executive for Customer:
    CONFIDENTIAL
 Page 7
# C_2007283EN.01003401.xml

| 24.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/34

---

Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)

(Case T-366/07)

(2007/C 283/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United States) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prestige Cosmetics Srl (Anzola Emilia, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 July 2007 in Case R 681/2006-2 be overruled; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 July 2007 in Case R 681/2006-2 be overruled;

| — | the opposition No B 311 318 dated 2 October 2000 be rejected as far as this opposition was upheld by the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 March 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

the opposition No B 311 318 dated 2 October 2000 be rejected as far as this opposition was upheld by the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 March 2006;

| — | the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings;

| — | the intervener be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the intervener be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE’ for inter alia goods in class 3

Community trade mark concerned:

inter alia

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Prestige Cosmetics Srl

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative marks ‘prestige’ for goods in class 3

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade mark applied for and the earlier marks as the goods covered by the trade marks are dissimilar and the trade marks clearly differ.

Pleas in law:

---
**Exhibit 31.****4**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Rita O’Connor, certify that:

 

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PLx Pharma Inc.; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: April 1, 2019 |   | /s/ Rita O’Connor                                |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   | Rita O’Connor                                    |
|                |   | Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial officer) |

 

** **
Exhibit 32.1

Registrant (Commission File Number 333-110029):

Broder Bros., Co.

Six Neshaminy Interplex, 6thFloor

Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Broder Bros., Co. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Myers, Chief
Executive Officer of Broder Bros., Co., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broder Bros., Co.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15, 2007



BRODER BROS., CO.By:

/s/ THOMAS MYERSThomas Myers Chief Executive Officer




25
# C_2007269EN.01001601.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Codirex Expeditie BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-400/06) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Subheading 0202 30 50 - Cuts of frozen boned meat from a part of the forequarter of bovine animals)

(2007/C 269/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Codirex Expeditie BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlandem — Interpretation of Additional Note 1.A.(h)(11) to Chapter 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October 1999 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1999 L 278, p. 1) — Frozen boned meat derived from a part of the forequarter

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that pieces of frozen boned meat from the forequarter part of the bovine animal come under subheading 0202 30 50 of the Combined Nomenclature. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that pieces of frozen boned meat from the forequarter part of the bovine animal come under subheading 0202 30 50 of the Combined Nomenclature.

| 2. | Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 2204/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that pieces of frozen boned meat from the forequarter of the bovine animal do not have to satisfy any other conditions, and in particular, do not have to come from the same animal, in order to be classified under subheading 0202 30 50. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 2204/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that pieces of frozen boned meat from the forequarter of the bovine animal do not have to satisfy any other conditions, and in particular, do not have to come from the same animal, in order to be classified under subheading 0202 30 50.

---

(1)  JO C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<CIK>            0000096412
<NAME>           TASTY BAKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                130
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      25,312
<ALLOWANCES>                       (2,729)
<INVENTORY>                         3,833
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   29,392
<PP&E>                            157,016
<DEPRECIATION>                   (109,550)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    102,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              15,201
<BONDS>                            12,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                            4,558
<OTHER-SE>                         38,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      102,170
<SALES>                           113,509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  114,558
<CGS>                              70,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      70,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    4,997
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     5,973
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,986
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 3,987
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        3,987
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.50
        

</TABLE>
PETE NECHOVSKI, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-862 

CRIM. NO. 2:07-CR-131 

Judge Watson 

Magistrate Judge King 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

On November 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be dismissed. Report and Recommendation, ECF 

No. 141. Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the Report and 

Recommendation, and of the consequences of their failure to do so, no objections have 

been filed. 

The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 141, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

This action is hereby DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT. 

IVfiCHAELH.A ~-Woi?M SON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:11-cv-00862-MHW-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 12/27/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD L. QUINN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:11-cv-268

v. Judge James L. Graham 

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

ROBIN KNAB, WARDEN,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court conducted its initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A on March 31, 2011, causing Plaintiff’s Complaint to be filed on that

date. (ECF Nos. 3 and 4.) To date, Plaintiff has not effected service of process as required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) over Defendants Mohr and Freeman. On December 19,

2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why the Court should not

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Mohr and Freeman without prejudice and why the

Court should allow an extension of time to effect service. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff has not

responded to the Court’s Show Cause Order. The undersigned, therefore, RECOMMENDS that

the Court dismiss Defendants Mohr and Freeman from this action without prejudice pursuant to

Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Case: 2:11-cv-00268-JLG-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 01/09/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed,

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation

omitted)).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: January 9, 2012 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge 

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00268-JLG-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 01/09/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>